In Reply to: RE: Fine. posted by tlyyra on December 19, 2007 at 03:22:03:
Your agenda is clear, to debunk anyone who thinks phase audibility with music is real and to defame JA for making an erroneous statement.
One question for you though since I don't have the Lipshitz paper: Does Lipshitz in his paper actually break down the results and separate test tones from music? Or does he lump all the results together to get the 99% confidence limit? Are his conclusions separated between tones and music or is that your own doing? In other words, are you putting forward their conclusions of the work or your own interpretation of the results??
I have plenty of my own experiments with phase effects while designing speakers to prove that it is real. Using a digital xover with readily adjustable phase allows for some interesting and highly audible results. You should try these things yourself and find out what is audible and what is not. I recommend a Behringer DCX 2496, its cheap and very flexible because you can also do long time delays as well.
"Playing a policeman": One poster got already banned and had his account deleted a few days ago for pointing out this very same "error" of Atkinson's."
Look, its not the pointing out of the error, its the insistence that it was a malicious error intended to mislead readers. You are being intentionally obtuse and trying obfuscate the situation by claiming otherwise. This tells me you are not playing "on the level" and have an agenda to promote.
I don't think it was intentional and most others don't either. It is slanderous to accuse someone of something like that without at least some proof of how it was intentional. That is why TSP was asked to recant or be banned not for pointing out an error. Your way of twisting the reality reminds me of few other chumps here.
"Who are the policement? Those who post the facts for everyone to see, or those who go about deleting them where they become inconvenient and eliminate those who post them? Keep watching what happens to people like him"
Should I just call you Teflon man? Rather than addressing the issue headon you deflect it to the moderators who, BTW could care less about whether JA made a mistake or not but they care very much about slanderous remarks...and rightly so. TSP got what was coming to him for making comments without substantiation and you do too.
" Atkinson himself has suggested that any errors of fact in Stereophile be forwarded to his attention so he can issue a public correction of them. I have done this as suggested. Look at the reactions, including your own. The public may draw its own conclusions.
"
Did you issue them in private first? Give him a chance to address you personally and make the correction? If not then you were just baiting him in a public forum...not cool.
"If you want to discuss that paper I referred to, start another thread and I'll say what I think of it. This thread is about something else.
"
What a copout!! YOU posted that link in THIS thread! So why should I have to start an new thread for you to address it? If you introduced it you should be prepared to discuss it.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Fine. - morricab 12/19/0709:03:55 12/19/07 (26)
- Debunking / Policing on AA / Correcting Errors - tlyyra 04:12:31 12/20/07 (9)
- Administrivia: Stop spreading falsehoods or ... - Ted Smith 11:41:29 12/20/07 (3)
- RE: Administrivia: Stop spreading falsehoods or ... - tlyyra 12:09:25 12/20/07 (2)
- RE: Administrivia: Stop spreading falsehoods or ... - Ted Smith 12:16:06 12/20/07 (1)
- RE: Administrivia: Stop spreading falsehoods or ... - tlyyra 14:03:19 12/20/07 (0)
- Correcting Errors - John Atkinson 04:29:46 12/20/07 (4)
- Correcting More Errors - tlyyra 05:39:35 12/20/07 (3)
- RE: Correcting More Errors - John Atkinson 06:41:51 12/20/07 (2)
- Why not just answer the questions? They would settle it all so very quickly. - tlyyra 08:17:37 12/20/07 (1)
- I'm only replying so you can't delete it. - robert young 10:14:03 12/20/07 (0)
- RE: Fine. - andy_c 20:47:09 12/19/07 (12)
- RE: Fine. - morricab 02:19:23 12/20/07 (11)
- Yes, you are missing something. - tlyyra 03:25:06 12/20/07 (10)
- RE: Yes, you are missing something. - morricab 03:15:50 12/21/07 (9)
- 'Interpretation' and 'reinterpretation' - tlyyra 04:06:27 12/21/07 (8)
- RE: 'Interpretation' and 'reinterpretation' - John Atkinson 11:50:25 12/21/07 (6)
- RE: 'Interpretation' and 'reinterpretation' - tlyyra 11:30:02 12/22/07 (5)
- RE: 'Interpretation' and 'reinterpretation' - John Atkinson 14:57:16 12/22/07 (4)
- RE: 'Interpretation' and 'reinterpretation' - tlyyra 05:37:18 12/23/07 (3)
- RE: 'Interpretation' and 'reinterpretation' - John Atkinson 08:01:18 12/24/07 (2)
- "Semantic forests" and still no evidence you can cite? - tlyyra 08:59:06 12/26/07 (1)
- More mindreading, it appears - John Atkinson 13:51:11 12/27/07 (0)
- RE: 'Interpretation' and 'reinterpretation' - morricab 06:23:28 12/21/07 (0)
- Objection, Your Honor - bjh 09:37:39 12/19/07 (2)
- Right, you have no arguments... - tlyyra 03:27:33 12/20/07 (0)
- RE: Objection, Your Honor - morricab 02:16:49 12/20/07 (0)